If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.

b&

I'm thinking about moving up from my 50 1.8... Kind of stuck between the 1.4 now, or waiting a bit (not necessarily a bad thing, since I do have the 1.8 if I need it) and saving up for the 50L or seeing what sigma releases for a new fast 50, since their 35 has been such a big hit. I'm curious why you say the 1.4 is better than the L in virtually every respect... I know about the slightly curved focal plane the L has, but does the 1.4 do other things optically better? or is it just the smaller/cheaper/lighter that you're getting at?

The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).

Really, all you get with the L is an extra fraction of a stop of maximum aperture (with a depth of field so insanely narrow that it can only be considered a special effect) and "better build quality" that doesn't include weather sealing.

The 1.4 is a superlative lens. The L isn't a better lens; it's just a slightly poorer performing, heavier lens that opens up a marginal fraction wider. And it's got some red paint. And it costs three times as much That's all.

I wouldn't call the L a bad lens; indeed, it's almost as superlative a lens as the 1.4.

I would, however, describe the L as far and away the absolute worst bang-for-the-buck in Canon's lineup.

If your reaction to learning that you'll be out-of-pocket $1500 for repairs on your car is annoyance with the hassle of dealing with the rental while your car is in the shop, then the L is for you. Otherwise, if you'll actually notice $1500 missing from your bank account, the L is the last lens you should buy.

Another 50 worth considering is the f/2.5 compact macro. It's the sharpest 50 Canon makes, one of the sharpest lenses you can get period, and has essentially no distortion or other flaws. Autofocus kinda sucks, but if that and the merely-moderate maximum aperture don't faze you, it's otherwise probably the best 50 on the market today as far as optics goes.

The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).

Really, all you get with the L is an extra fraction of a stop of maximum aperture (with a depth of field so insanely narrow that it can only be considered a special effect) and "better build quality" that doesn't include weather sealing.

The 1.4 is a superlative lens. The L isn't a better lens; it's just a slightly poorer performing, heavier lens that opens up a marginal fraction wider. And it's got some red paint. And it costs three times as much That's all.

Not quite. The 50L is sharper than the 50/1.4 from f/1.4 - f/2, doesn't have the halation that affects the 50/1.4 wide open, has much less flare, and has smoother, better bokeh at comparable apertures. To state that the 50L is 'poorer performing' is misleading. Whether or not the 50L's slightly better optical performance at wide apertures justify it's 4-times higher price tag is a different issue.

40mm f/2.8 "pancake". 40mm is wide-normal, close to how the eye takes in scenes. Since your post is about value, it can't be beat @ $149 with high praises for sharpness.Unexpectedly, it has become my 6D's default lens, scaling it down to an unobtrusive large point-and-shoot.Re: 50mm, I've been very happy with a Sigma f/2.8 macro ever since the autofocus on my Canon f/1.4 broke, a common failure mode.

Then again, where do you draw the line and why? 35mm won't be distorting people much unless shot from very close. I personally consider a 35mm the all around normal lens. I don't really do landscapes, but if I did, I wouldn't consider 35mm wide enough either.

Bokeh is so often subjective. I find nothing to complain about with the bokeh of the f/1.4. But, of course, anybody for whom the particular "look" of the L is significantly preferable to the "look" of the f/1.4...well, discussion over, obviously.

Equally obviously, I'm not one of those people...and, I'd suggest, that very few clients or critics would even notice or be able to pick the one over the other. On the other hand, if your clients and / or critics are in that latter category, you'd damned well better be charging enough so as to fall into the "I lose $1500 when it falls out of my pockets at the theater and I don't even notice or care" category.

If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.

b&

I'm thinking about moving up from my 50 1.8... Kind of stuck between the 1.4 now, or waiting a bit (not necessarily a bad thing, since I do have the 1.8 if I need it) and saving up for the 50L or seeing what sigma releases for a new fast 50, since their 35 has been such a big hit. I'm curious why you say the 1.4 is better than the L in virtually every respect... I know about the slightly curved focal plane the L has, but does the 1.4 do other things optically better? or is it just the smaller/cheaper/lighter that you're getting at?

The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).

Really, all you get with the L is an extra fraction of a stop of maximum aperture (with a depth of field so insanely narrow that it can only be considered a special effect) and "better build quality" that doesn't include weather sealing.

The 1.4 is a superlative lens. The L isn't a better lens; it's just a slightly poorer performing, heavier lens that opens up a marginal fraction wider. And it's got some red paint. And it costs three times as much That's all.

I wouldn't call the L a bad lens; indeed, it's almost as superlative a lens as the 1.4.

I would, however, describe the L as far and away the absolute worst bang-for-the-buck in Canon's lineup.

If your reaction to learning that you'll be out-of-pocket $1500 for repairs on your car is annoyance with the hassle of dealing with the rental while your car is in the shop, then the L is for you. Otherwise, if you'll actually notice $1500 missing from your bank account, the L is the last lens you should buy.

Another 50 worth considering is the f/2.5 compact macro. It's the sharpest 50 Canon makes, one of the sharpest lenses you can get period, and has essentially no distortion or other flaws. Autofocus kinda sucks, but if that and the merely-moderate maximum aperture don't faze you, it's otherwise probably the best 50 on the market today as far as optics goes.

The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).

Really, all you get with the L is an extra fraction of a stop of maximum aperture (with a depth of field so insanely narrow that it can only be considered a special effect) and "better build quality" that doesn't include weather sealing.

The 1.4 is a superlative lens. The L isn't a better lens; it's just a slightly poorer performing, heavier lens that opens up a marginal fraction wider. And it's got some red paint. And it costs three times as much That's all.

Not quite. The 50L is sharper than the 50/1.4 from f/1.4 - f/2, doesn't have the halation that affects the 50/1.4 wide open, has much less flare, and has smoother, better bokeh at comparable apertures. To state that the 50L is 'poorer performing' is misleading. Whether or not the 50L's slightly better optical performance at wide apertures justify it's 4-times higher price tag is a different issue.

Very helpful, both of you. Thanks! Given that I'd have to save up for a while- and would notice when the price of a 50L was gone, I will probably go 50 1.4 sooner than later. (Given that my biggest complaint with the 1.8 II is the AF, and I have the 17-55 if I need to cover 50 @ f/2.8, I'm going to skip the compact macro. But that is intriguingly high praise...)

Then again, where do you draw the line and why? 35mm won't be distorting people much unless shot from very close. I personally consider a 35mm the all around normal lens. I don't really do landscapes, but if I did, I wouldn't consider 35mm wide enough either.

The textbook says that a normal lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the imaging area. On 135 format, sqrt((24mm*24mm) + (36mm*36mm)) = 43mm, so the Shorty McForty is actually more normal than a 50.

Then again, where do you draw the line and why? 35mm won't be distorting people much unless shot from very close. I personally consider a 35mm the all around normal lens. I don't really do landscapes, but if I did, I wouldn't consider 35mm wide enough either.

The textbook says...

Textbooks can say what they please. I'd say that real life use determines things for most of us.

I would go with the 50mm f/1.8 II. It can be had for $125 brand new and it is very sharp. You can use the money you save to get a great circlar polarizer (I recommend B+W). It is also a great lens if you want to merge photos for panoramic shots.

Unfortunately, the 50mm f/1.8 II "nifty fifty" is pretty rough when shooting video. Contrast-detect AF with that lens is horribly slow & rarely gets a lock in indoor or evening environments, & forget about using it at night. Just switch the lens to MF when you switch to video mode & leave it there until you're done.

Still a fine lens for stills though. But the 40mm pancake is certainly more satisfying.

I think you are missing my point. We all know the definitions commonly used. What I was trying to say is that I can't imagine many photographers using a 35mm as a wide lens. Instead it's quite common as the main "normal" lens at weddings and such.

Surely 35mm is officially defined as wide angle, but that is just something people have agreed on. People agree on all kind of things. 1+1=2... If you have an apple & a banana you may have 2 fruits, but the units aren't exactly the same.

then lens tip must also have been unlucky and got a bad copy of the 50/1.2 compared to 50/1.4 and sharpness.

Well, silly me...I thought that overall IQ was about more than just sharpness. I guess since that's easy to measure (relatively), we pay more attention to it. And yes, the edges of the 50L aren't sharp. You want the center soft, too, try the 50/1.0L. But an f/1.8 portrait with a busy background is going to look better with the 50/1.2L than with the 50/1.4 (and possibly even better with the 50/1.0L). No question that the 50/1.4 is a better value. But heck, if sharpness per $/£/€/¥ is your most important criterion in choosing a 50mm prime, the 50/1.8 II is much better than the 50/1.4.